Can you please point me again to the living coral evidence you spoke about?

Thanks.

I had started with FOSSIL coral intraspecific morphological variation, because it should have been clear, even to you, that Schindewolf was avoiding testing his hypothesis. Since you completely ignored that evidence, there was no reason to cite evidence from living corals:

Can you please point me again to the living coral evidence you spoke about?

Thanks.

I had started with FOSSIL coral intraspecific morphological variation, because it should have been clear, even to you, that Schindewolf was avoiding testing his hypothesis. Since you completely ignored that evidence, there was no reason to cite evidence from living corals:

1) What evidence you used to reach this explicitly DEFINITE conclusion, and2) If it was inherited, what evidence do you have on the amount of polymorphism within coral species or colonies.

Thanks!

For 1: I was going exclusively on the evidence presented for the "developing" suture lines in Schindewolf's book (see Fig. 3.46 on pg. 151 for an example). I then made the assumption that, because these suture lines changed over time, they represented an inherited factor. I did not seek out any other sources. So, in retrospect, I should have never said "definitely".

For 2: I don't have any. That's not to say that there isn't any in Schindewolf's book, but I'm not remembering any right now.

BTW, Schindewolf did study living corals, he mentions studying the living coral Scleractinia on page 151.

One of my biggest problems JAM is that I can't seem to retain much of what I read (especially when it's over my head). I'm learning this stuff in bits and pieces so I might not be able to give you specific answers to your questions - which is why I often speak in generalities.

I just ran across this in Schindewolf's book:

Quote

With corals, too, if preservational conditions have been favorable we are fortunate to have access to the entire developmental history of the skeletal elements of a singel individual, from its first appearance on. We can take a series of cross sections from the calcareous corallite and, using them, follow in every detail the origin and transformation of the septa,pg.149

I wasn't aware that it was possible to actually see the development of an individual in the fossil record! Not that this proves anything, I just found it interesting.

--------------"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance." Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question." Richard Dawkins

...And yet, this [he means inexorable increase in size] is by no means always the case; extremely often it is just the opposite, that extinct, ancient animal forms are characterized by unusual size, and the layman is indeed inclined to imagine these, without exception, as gigantic monsters.

In fact, we know that among extinct tigers, bears, elephants, rhinoceroses, and so on, there are some extinct species that were considerably larger than those living today. A particularly conspicuous example is the mighty Baluchitherium, from the Oligocene of Asia, which is assigned to the rhinoceros group even though (like most ancient rhinoceroses) it has no horn on its nose (fig. 3.136). The shoulder height of this animal comes to about 5.3 meters, and the length of the torso is as much as 10 meters, making it one of the largest terrestrial mammals that ever lived. The enormous size of this animal is clearly seen in the comparison of a reconstruction of Baluchitherium with the Recent Indian rhi­noceros, both shown to scale in figure 3. 137.

These examples, however, by no means represent a contradiction to our rule of phyletic increase in size, for the extinct forms in question are not the imme­diate predecessors of the smaller Recent species. They are only members of a broader, related group within which they represent the terminal forms of extinct collateral lines (fig. 3.138). To this extent, they thoroughly confirm the general rule that gigantic forms mark the end of evolution.

Unquestionable examples of a once-attained body size being secondarily re­duced are almost unknown except in instances where such a reduction is suc­ceeded by a thorough remodeling to a completely new typal structure, which, itself, begins again with small forms. The exceptions occasionally cited are prob­ably only apparent, for in those cases it has not been shown that the forms with the supposed reduction in size really issued from larger ancestral forms of the same genetic lineage; only in such a situation would our rule be contradicted.

Accordingly, the evolution of size is, in general, irreversible. However, it is immediately clear that gigantic forms are indicators of dying lineages, for ulti­mately a point would be reached beyond which continued increase in size would be impossible for physiological reasons.

However, you are full of it, Schindewolf:

Quote

Simpson, op. cit., pp.137-138:

In this connection, it is known that many large animals of the past became extinct and are not the ancestors of their smaller living relatives. Mammoths were not ancestral to smaller elephants. (As a matter of fact, most mammoths were no larger than some living elephants, but a few were.) The elephantine ground sloths were not ancestral to the little living tree sloths. The dinosaurs were not the ancestors of the small lizards of later times. But this does not mean that forms that were the ancestors of living animals were not also somewhat larger than the latter at one time or another, and such does appear to be the case for some of them.

Some paleontologists have been so impressed by the fre­quent trend for animals to become larger as time goes on that they have tried to work it the other way around. If they find, say, a Pleistocene bison that is somewhat larger than a Recent bison (so-called Bison taylori, associate and prey of early man in America, is a good example), then they conclude that it is not ancestral to later bison because it is larger. You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly.

That last line is a keeper.

mitschlag,

I don't think Schindewolf was of the opinion that all lineages always increased in size. I remember him talking about exceptions such as pygmy and dwarf species. He also talked at length, and provided septal and suture line data that showed that some lineages didn't change much at all for long periods of time. He does claim that there's a definite tendency towards gigantism towards the end of many lineages, and your quote form Simpson agrees with that:

Quote

Some paleontologists have been so impressed by the fre­quent trend for animals to become larger as time goes on that they have tried to work it the other way around.

Schindewolf might have overstated its extent, but I don't think that means his statements should be ignored altogether. Perhaps they should just be taken with a grain of salt.

--------------"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance." Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question." Richard Dawkins

Is that the gist of his saltationist hypothesis? It looks testable. Are there any molecular-genetic-devolopmental data pertaining thereto in the literature?

Only morphological data are needed, which is why I kept pointing out to Dan that Schindewolf couldn't be bothered to test his hypothesis. It makes crystal-clear predictions about the limits of variation we should find in both living and fossilized corals.

I did not seek out any other sources. So, in retrospect, I should have never said "definitely".

Quote

One of my biggest problems JAM is that I can't seem to retain much of what I read (especially when it's over my head).

So go back to the beginning and start over. Start your education from the ground up, don't try and leap in areas even you admit you do not properly understand. How can you possible expect to prove your (any) point if you don't even understand the arguments you are getting back when you make a point!?!

Daniel, there's only room in my sig for one quote at a time, please stop!

So, is horse evolution a problem for Darwinism or not? I don't care if it was Alan that picked that subject, I'm asking you now, with your new knowledge that's been hard earned, do you see it as a problem for Darwinism or not?

If yes, why?If no, well, teh win.

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

Is that the gist of his saltationist hypothesis? It looks testable. Are there any molecular-genetic-devolopmental data pertaining thereto in the literature?

Only morphological data are needed, which is why I kept pointing out to Dan that Schindewolf couldn't be bothered to test his hypothesis. It makes crystal-clear predictions about the limits of variation we should find in both living and fossilized corals.

Thanks for finding that for me. I've been looking at the pictures and can see a lot of variety in septal arrangement - though many follow a similar format with three shorter septa between the longer ones.

I can not access the paper though. Can you tell me if these corals were all contemporaries of one another? I see that they are all from the Pleistocene epoch, but that epoch spans from 1,808,000 to 11,550 years BP. Also I need to know if these are all adult forms?

Thanks.

--------------"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance." Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question." Richard Dawkins

I did not seek out any other sources. So, in retrospect, I should have never said "definitely".

Quote

One of my biggest problems JAM is that I can't seem to retain much of what I read (especially when it's over my head).

So go back to the beginning and start over. Start your education from the ground up, don't try and leap in areas even you admit you do not properly understand. How can you possible expect to prove your (any) point if you don't even understand the arguments you are getting back when you make a point!?!

Daniel, there's only room in my sig for one quote at a time, please stop!

So, is horse evolution a problem for Darwinism or not? I don't care if it was Alan that picked that subject, I'm asking you now, with your new knowledge that's been hard earned, do you see it as a problem for Darwinism or not?

If yes, why?If no, well, teh win.

The only part of horse evolution that I ever claimed was a problem for Darwinism was the [disputed] claim that the reduction in toes began before it was beneficial.

--------------"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance." Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question." Richard Dawkins

The only part of horse evolution that I ever claimed was a problem for Darwinism was the [disputed] claim that the reduction in toes began before it was beneficial.

So, is that a "Yes" or a "No"?

You are very good at answering a different question to the one that was asked Daniel....

I don't know enough about the particulars of horse evolution to say whether it (the entire evolutionary history of the horse lineage) is a problem for Darwinism or not. I was merely pointing out that I (as far as I can remember) only made one reference to horse evolution being a problem for a Darwinist interpretation and that was regarding the pre-adaptive selection for the reduction in toes. It has never been the focus of my arguments here however.

--------------"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance." Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question." Richard Dawkins

I don't know enough about the particulars of horse evolution to say whether it (the entire evolutionary history of the horse lineage) is a problem for Darwinism or not. I was merely pointing out that I (as far as I can remember) only made one reference to horse evolution being a problem for a Darwinist interpretation and that was regarding the pre-adaptive selection for the reduction in toes. It has never been the focus of my arguments here however.

That might be a problem if it were supported by evidence. How can one be confident that a trait is non-adaptive if one does not have a clear picture of the environment at the time the trait emerged?

Note that the plains came before the one-toed horses, contrary to Schindewolf's belief. (You can't have plains without grazing animals, and you don't need to be one-toed to be a grazing animal.)

Note that three-toed horses were running on plains (and eating grass) capably enough to survive for millions of years.

Note that one-toed horses became extinct in the Americas despite an abundance of plains for them to run on and grass to graze on.

Schindewolf appears to have selected evidence to fit his orthogenetic preconceptions.

--------------"You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

There's really no point to it anymore. We're starting to cover topics we've already covered - sometimes several times.

I've learned lots since coming here. Thanks to everyone who challenged me on things. You forced me to take a long hard look at myself and my beliefs. I'm sorry I came across as defensive and unwilling to learn because I really was listening.

I'd like to especially thank JAM for showing me the importance of evidence, data and TESTING! I'm going to do everything in my power to destroy my own hypotheses and beliefs from now on. Maybe I'll come back and let you all know how it turns out.

Later.

--------------"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance." Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question." Richard Dawkins

There's really no point to it anymore. We're starting to cover topics we've already covered - sometimes several times.

I've learned lots since coming here. Thanks to everyone who challenged me on things. You forced me to take a long hard look at myself and my beliefs. I'm sorry I came across as defensive and unwilling to learn because I really was listening.

I'd like to especially thank JAM for showing me the importance of evidence, data and TESTING! I'm going to do everything in my power to destroy my own hypotheses and beliefs from now on. Maybe I'll come back and let you all know how it turns out.

Later.

Dan,

I'm glad I could help. Good luck. You might want to look into the concept of NOMA:

There's really no point to it anymore. We're starting to cover topics we've already covered - sometimes several times.

I've learned lots since coming here. Thanks to everyone who challenged me on things. You forced me to take a long hard look at myself and my beliefs. I'm sorry I came across as defensive and unwilling to learn because I really was listening.

I'd like to especially thank JAM for showing me the importance of evidence, data and TESTING! I'm going to do everything in my power to destroy my own hypotheses and beliefs from now on. Maybe I'll come back and let you all know how it turns out.

Later.

Farewell, Dan.

Glad you feel there was some benefit to your experience here. I second JAM's point about NOMA. You should give "The Ancestor's Tale" a try too.

it's a pity you have finished the discussion here. But you are right. There were some interesing links you sent. It's more usefull to read those materials. I was again inspired by the link you sent on German idealistic morphology and borrowed Pflanzenmorphology by professor Wilhelm Troll. It has more than 700 pages and it deals with interesting idea that all seed-plants are just variations of ideal "Urpflanze". Wilhelm Troll crucial works - as those of A. Portmann - haven't been translated into English.

--------------I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin